Well is the surge a success or a failure?

[Mark Gambo]

I was reading two differnt article today and one speaks about how Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an "extraordinary crisis" the I read about Nancy Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure' . What gives they both can't be right. Oh I know why, it is election time.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, they can both be right, it just depends on spin. If your objective was to reduce violence, that may have happened...or not, it seems to depend on what segment you look at. On the other hand, reducing violence was not the ultimate objective. The original purpose was to allow the government an opportunity to get its act together. Of course, if that doesn't happen you can always change the objectives.

[GaryMazzone]

It simple 2 politicians speak the can both spin things to how they want you to see it. Remember is a politician's lips are moving you know one thing for certain they are lying

[Xanith]

What I have found is that when violence was out of control and American troops were dying at an increased rate, the anti-Iraq war forces inside congress (democrats and liberals) were pointing to the death and mayhem as the reason why the Iraq campaign was a failure. Harry Reid was even quoted as saying that “the war is lost”.

Now that conditions on the ground in Iraq have greatly improved to avoid some political embarrassment the democrats seem to have adopted the theme of lack of political progress in Iraq to still claim Iraq is a complete failure.

I am sure once there is some political progress the democrats will turn their eye to some other problems that exist in Iraq to claim their belief that Iraq (read as Bush’s war) is still a failure. So even if Iraq is turned into Eden and pays back all the money the US has invested, with interest, the democrats will still be claiming it is a failure.

So it doesn’t surprise me that another democrat leader is claiming that Iraq is a failure, the democrats have already invested themselves in defeat in Iraq, they will not change their tune or their rhetoric regardless of reality on the ground in Iraq.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's true. Wars are partisan issues, and have been for.....ok, they've always been partisan issues. Still, it was Bush who argued for the surge on the grounds that it would give the govenment a chance to get something done, and it is the military leadership that is voicing frustration over the intransigence of the political leadership in Iraq. Of course, switching the definition of victory has been around since the dawn of time, too. Eventually, we should all try to remember that the stated reason for the surge was political improvement, which requires that the people feel secure. It may actually happen. I'm feeling guardedly optimistic that we can change Iraq from a brutal dictatorship into another failed state which is corrupt and using anti-American rhetoric to placate a seething unrest. I really don't think that the neo-con goal of a secular, honestly democratic Iraq is either attainable, or even in our best interests in the near term (say next two or three decades).

[SurfDemon]

X, Once again, do you honestly believe that only liberals/democrats believe that the war in Iraq is a failure? Do you feel that everyone else thinks that the war is a stunning success?